Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Revenge of the Ghouls: When Liberals Attack

(Visitors new to this blog might want to skip the first paragraph. While I can assure you it makes perfect nonsense, only prolonged exposure to the blog can shed sufficient obscurity on its pundamental meaning. Suffice it to say that it's funny because it's true!)

For fertile eggheads, thinking is a trinitarian process that results from the harmonious union of Father conscious and mother unConscious producing baby thoughtlet. This little thought then grows up and mary's his own true-to-wife unConscious, the innercourse of which eventually produces bouncing new grandthoughts out of the voidgin soil. And sow on and sow fourth.

And just as we couldn't have a complex genetic blueprint without copying errors, we couldn't have real thinking without mistakes. Of course we could have logic, but logic isn't thinking. If thinking is reduced to logic, then you end up shooting psychic blanks with forms of pseudo-thinking such as materialism, atheism, or radical secularism.

And even then, anyone should know that logic is useless and often dangerous in the absence of a nonlocal thinker who knows how and when to deploy it, and is aware of the limits beyond which it becomes patently irrational. To apply logic beyond its proper limits is like trying to use a sundial on the dark side of the moon.

Logic cannot give birth to its own materials, nor can it father its own boundaries. This is why the problem of our Ønanistic trolls can be summarized in four words: their boys can't swim. Their masturbatory thoughts are dead on arrival.

In the absence of a prudent thinker -- prudence being the cardinal virtue -- logic is just as likely to use faulty premises to arrive at illogical conclusions; or, as is intrinsic to contemporary liberalism, fail to draw out the full chain of reasoning.

Rather, the liberal arbitrarily stops thinking at a point that suits his desires, his flattering self-image, and his policy preferences. Nor are liberals capable of entertaining counterfactuals, i.e., what might have been absent their meddling.

If liberals would only reason just a little bit farther -- from A all the way to C or D, instead of stopping at B, they might begin to see the actual effects of their countless failed government programs. But doing this would require them to exit their fishy world of squishy wish fulfillment and enter the painful world of the reality principle.

Roger Kimball writes that "This is the oldest and the best argument for conservatism: the argument from the fact that our actions almost always have unforeseen and unwelcome consequences. It is an argument from so great and so mournful a fund of experience, that nothing can rationally outweigh it.

"Yet somehow, at any rate in societies like ours, this argument never is given its due weight. When what is called a 'reform' proves to be, yet again, a cure worse than the disease, the assumption is always that what is needed is still more, and still more drastic, 'reform.' Progressives cannot wrap their minds (or, more to the point, their hearts) around this irony: that 'reform' so regularly exacerbates either the evil it was meant to cure or another evil it had hardly glimpsed."

Even more alarmingly, the reforms forced upon us by liberals not only produce unintended consequences, but unintended human beings and an unintended culture for them to feel comfortable in. In short, it produces deviant people who then require the very cultural circumstances that gave psychic birth to them in order to feel "normal."

Senior Raccoons will remember a time, not too long ago, that abnormal people in our culture actually felt abnormal. They were aware of their deviancy, and how this deviancy contributed to an unhappiness that no government has the power to eliminate.

But under the guise of "tolerance" and multiculturalism, we have deprived these poor souls of the feedback they need in order to know that they are not normal. This is not empathy, but cruelty -- like shielding someone from a cancer diagnosis on the grounds that it will make them feel bad, but depriving them of the chance to fight it.

In order to allow such people to feel normal in their abnormalcy, we have had to develop a deviant culture for them to live in, to such an extent that the normal are now made to feel abnormal. A liberal can rename someone "special," but that doesn't alter the gravity of the actual condition.

This is one of the influences on the Tea Party movement, and more generally the effort to take our country back from the deviant. Not surprisingly, this is enraging the abnormals of the left, as witnessed, for example, by the weird attempt to suggest that normal people somehow caused the patently abnormal Jared Loughner to open fire on a bunch of normal people.

If multiculturalism were true, it would mean that all cultures are of equal value. But this is equivalent to saying that there is no reality to which culture is an adaptation. As a result, culture devolves to a mere fantasy world. Which, of course, it is for the left. They are, by their own lights, not oriented to reality, since reality is just an oppressive white European male construct.

So, what is the left adapted to? That is a good question. I suppose it depends upon the day and the circumstances, for it changes -- which is their prerogative, since change is their only reality. Yesterday dissent was the highest form of patriotism, whereas today it is a Climate of Hate. Nuance!

Nothing is more futile than trying to hold a liberal to what they said yesterday. A leftist assassinates JFK? You can't use that to tar the left. A Palestinian assassinates RFK? Can't use that to implicate Palestinian nationalism. Some loon almost murders Reagan in the densest climate of statist haters since the Confederacy? Whatever.

As Kimball writes, one good reason to be wary of promiscuous change is that "lasting cultural accomplishments are hard-won achievements that are easy to lose but difficult to recoup." To paraphrase Dawson, it is possible to destroy something in a day that took 5,000 years to build. Then again, Dawson was obviously unaware of New Deal and Great Society programs, which seem to be as permanent as the pyramids of Egypt.

The language of mindless change also discourages the cultivation of gratitude, which is one of the prerequisites of human happiness. In the words of Kimball, "the rhetoric of change encourages us to discount present blessings that are real for future promises that are uncertain at best."

Mind parasites are generally not too destructive so long as they are confined to individual minds and played out in personal relationships. But just as neurosis may be thought of as a private culture, culture often comes down to a public neurosis. And that is when the mind parasites can result in the enfeeblement and even eradication of the host, as in contemporary leftism.

In reading of the left's egregious political exploitation of the Arizona murders, I was struck yesterday by how many times I saw the words "liberal" and "ghoulish" conjoined. This is no accident. When the abnormals are confronted with their abnormality in a consistent and unyielding way, their ghoulishness becomes all the more evident, as it must come out from hiding and actually defend the indefensible.

And of course, the ghouls will subjectively experience this as a climate of hatred.

40 Comments:

Then again, Dawson was obviously unaware of New Deal and Great Society programs.

Indeed. Funny - it's easy to figure out ways to destroy something wonderful. A tower, an edifice, a founding document. A few explosions or just garden-variety neglect and rot, either way will do the trick. But doing away with something awful is more like trying to eradicate kudzu in the South. Or bedbugs or cockroaches. Once the infestation has taken root, it's all but impossible, short of extraordinary measures, to get rid of it.

On the issue of culture (and stepping away from the pathologies of the weekend), there's an interesting observation here about why America, historically, has been so successful. The article is in response to one in the WSJ recently about the "superiority" of Chinese Mothers.

"...the nature of the frontier forced Americans to learn to self-organize from the bottom up. The mythology of the American frontier (actually nothing but a literary invention) plays up the role of the lone individual but in reality the real story of the American frontier is one of peaceful, voluntary cooperations between disparate people far beyond the reach of established authority and predefined organizational structure. They had no one to mediate or direct so they learned to do it themselves."

Individualistic cooperation was our strength; it still is, I think, at least among the tea partiers. Yet the more socialistic policies creep in, the less our culture retains that particular character. And going back to the Chinese Mothers, if that stereotype holds any truth, such an upbringing fosters neither individualism nor the ability to cooperate. Every once in a while, someone cites a statistic about how many kids in China are studying the piano or excelling at math. One wonders, though, how many Chinese kids are also learning to be creative, because if there's no time for anything but rote learning as they grow up, their future looks decidedly grim; an entire culture of normalized abnormality.

If multiculturalism were true, it would mean that all cultures are of equal value. But this is equivalent to saying that there is no reality to which culture is an adaptation.

I saw this one a t-shirt over the weekend: REALITY KEEPS RUINING MY LIFE.

"Individualistic cooperation" -- what a great phrase. As far as the "rugged individualist" of the mythological American frontier being a literary device, there were dime-novel writers -- the forerunners of today's "journalists" who hyped things to sell sensational books or who practiced yellow journalism to sell papers. The West and its inhabitants were romanticized to some degree, but not by the people who lived through it and experienced it.

I've talked about my own experience growing up in an isolated rural area and of knowing people who lived on the remains of the frontier. It was rough rather than romantic. Still, it is not a "myth" (in the sense of being false as the WSJ piece implies) -- it is not a myth that people had individual initiative and a sense of personal responsibility. Nor is it a myth that the social structure was developed based on the reality of that existence rather than some government- imposed order.

Ace. Really shows how the state and its media have declared war on non-compliant citizens, with these completely invented lies about us. No wonder they want to ban harsh rhetoric except for their own, so we can't even call it what it is: a war. There is no question whatsoever that this is a civil war, except without the shooting. But the stakes are just as high.

Yes, there's really been some fantastic writing about this. I'm discovering some very talented bloggers I didn't even know about. I think this is a real watershed moment. Amazing to think that the government and MSM would have gotten away with this before the internet.

What she describes is kind of like my life growing up. Except that in addition to being required to get all A's, graduate valedictoian, and get a full scholarship to college, I was alo permitted to participate in drama.

My wife's already trying to get my daughter (8 years old) onto the "Medical Doctor/Valedictorian Track". I'm not sure whether I have another round of "let's graduate Valedictorian in me".

Amazing to think that the government and MSM would have gotten away with this before the internet.

Indeed; for instance, the following:“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”

I admit I'm somewhat cautious about swallowing the quote whole, given that it is unsourced, and yet it is believable given that that's what the MSM has been trying, not so deftly, to accomplish. However, if there were no internet they would probably have succeeded spectacularly - and a massive swath of ordinary, reasonable Americans would have been demonized right along with the actual perpetrator.

GB said: "There is no question whatsoever that this is a civil war, except without the shooting. But the stakes are just as high."

These are chilling words. Not that they aren't true. But chilling, nonetheless. Considering where I live, I am going to end up on the other side of the line than the vast majority of my friends and loved ones. If it hasn't happened already- only we all just haven't fully realize it.

So is this largely an intellectual civil war? A battle of ideas? And if so (returning to my nagging question of late), how does one participate in the most beneficial way possible?

It's fundamentally a spiritual battle that conditions the intellectual and all other human modes. Furthermore, it is the same battle that has always existed, ultimately light vs. dark, freedom vs. slavery, truth vs. the lie, O vs. Ø. It's what we call Cosmic War I. I come not to bring peace, but a sword.

Dennis Prager talks about this often. There are three, maybe four, political philosophies in competition for the future, and only one can prevail: European style statism, Islamism, Chinese state capitalism, and Americanism with its Greco-Judeo-Christian foundation (also as is beginning to flower in India, which may be our most important ally in the future).

Gagdad Bob said... I just realized I misspelled "sow" as "sew" in the first paragraph. Without the correct spelling, it makes no nonsense, i.e., soil --> sow. But I'm pretty that only I get these obscure jokes anyway.

Well, you had me in stitches, Bob. :^)

Perhaps it was your supraconcious that rote it that weigh. Besides, the substance of your posts are the fabric of our lives which can get worntorn sometimes, sew I can see wear you're coming from in this thread.

It's tailor made for stitchuations like this. I'm not gonna needle ya about it, but perhaps you should take a second looksee into the value of this type O and press on with it.

BTW Bob, I don't say it enough but I love your type O of humor. I appreciate it because it gets to places that dry cleaning can never reach and works on those tough stains that are so hard to get out. Sew thank you Bob! :^)

"Mind parasites are generally not too destructive so long as they are confined to individual minds and played out in personal relationships. But just as neurosis may be thought of as a private culture, culture often comes down to a public neurosis. And that is when the mind parasites can result in the enfeeblement and even eradication of the host, as in contemporary leftism."

Talking of mind parasites this way makes me think of individualism as a way of isolate the parasite. To put it in "quarantine" so to speak. Kept like that it can't hurt nobody else, except if you interact deeply with that person.

Here comes naturally the "problem" with being social and mimetic creatures. We have to interact with each other, so we need means of recognicing the mp's and avoid them, i.e. "coon vision".

But to give power to people with huge loads of parasites, like Obama or the former leftist congress, is something like pouring poison into the public drinking water. It affects everybody.

When, for example, environmentalist talk about the "precautionary principle", I asume they never consider this way of limiting the damage on the human environment.

That is an excellent point. It highlights the importance of the first rule of psychoanalytic therapy, which is the therapist's neutrality and objectivity, so that the patient's parasites can be isolated and identified via the transference, i.e., the projections into the therapeutic situation.

But in cultures where individualism is not valued, it is normative for everyone to share the same group fantasy into which all the members project their parasites -- e.g., liberal universities, or in our current situation in which the MSM and other liberals are all projecting their murderous aggression into peaceful tea partiers.

Someone can't be crazy and commit a political act partly motivated by violent political rhetoric in the media? It is "egregious" to raise the possibility that violent anti-government rhetoric coming largely from the right could have played a role in last Saturday's crimes and to urge that this and all violent rhetoric of every political persuasion be toned down? Surely you jest.

In other words, your answer to my previous questions are that someone CAN be crazy and commit a political act partly motivated by violent political rhetoric in the media, and that it is NOT "egregious" to raise the possibility that violent anti-government rhetoric coming largely from the right could have played a role in last Saturday's crimes and to urge that this and all violent rhetoric of every political persuasion be toned down. So, you contradict your blogpost's denunciations of the left for asserting that there could be a link between anti-government rhetoric on the right and Loughner's crimes, and I trust that you stand ready to modify or retract your post to reflect this.

Of course people can commit violence as a result of rhetoric. Just not this time, both because Lougner was psychotic and because the mainstream tea party movement is conspicuously nonviolent. One has only to look at Muslims or left wing demonstrations to see that people commit violence as a result of rhetoric.

The violence attributed to conservatives is simply a projection of the angry left, which is the true purveyor of angry rhetoric, hatefully tarring people with whom they disagree as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, imperialist, etc.

It would seem that you are the one impervious to facts or highly selective about the facts you're willing to consider when posting your entries. This seems intellectually dishonest. It's too bad more of your readers are unable or unwilling to call you on it.

"Rather, the liberal arbitrarily stops thinking at a point that suits his desires, his flattering self-image, and his policy preferences. "

Yep, it's a wonder to watch them stopping at that level which best satisfies the needs of the context of their pretext... and absolutely bars their opponents from doing so, or pointing out when they do.

Dissent? (What kind? Blue dogs?) Target them! Blast them out of office! Spread the word on huffpo, kos, Msnbc (figuritively speaking of course, it's not like there's anyone listening to spread it to)!Dissent? (What kind? Conservatives?) How dare you raise your voice?! You are a danger to society! Nothing of the sort should be allowed!

jurinalist, just in case you've forgotten, here ya go, pick a link and let the good lib times roll.

And your link is supposed to prove WHAT, Van? That verbal and physical violence has occurred on the left? Of course it has. But it has also occurred in spades on the right. Gagdad conveniently overlooks this is his one-sided condemnation of the left for discussing the possibility that violent anti-government rhetoric contributed to Loughner's actions.

You accuse Gagdad Bob of claiming that mentally ill people cannot commit violent acts motivated by political rhetoric.

You just made that up didn't you.

You then assert that Gagdad Bob is claiming that nobody on the Right has ever committed any act of political violence.

Wrong again, but then again you seem to like making stuff up.

As you know the rhetoric of violence has been a central thread in Leftist political rhetoric and actions since at least Marx, and Gagdad Bob is simply claiming that Leftist politicians and journalists who accuse the Taxed Enough Already movement of inciting violence are projecting.

He could have also said that it is an attempt to close down free speech.

As a journalist who (you tell us this so it must be true) rejects selectivity and simply wants to exercise your freedom to report the facts, it is a mystery why you turn on Gagdad Bob for despising journalists who have brought their craft into disrepute by exploiting the actions of a madman in the service of their own political hatreds.

That was an outstanding post. I know my comment is destitute of wit, but I'm hoping I can get off with maybe just a brief caning. :-)

I stumbled across this from American Digest. Seems I've seen your monicre around in the 'sphere before, and it's probable that I've read other stuff. Wait! Look, I already had you sidebared! Clearly one needs to revisit one's own sidebars. I don't sidebar lightly.

So that I don't go away without adding any insight, I did react to this:

"Nor are liberals capable of entertaining counterfactuals, i.e., what might have been absent their meddling."

I might modify that to say that they can entertain it to the extent that they believe that it is clear that absent their meddling, the opposite of their intent would definitely have occurred. This is evident in the "yeah, it's still bad, but if we hadn't spent $3 Trillion, it would obviously have been worse!"

Not only should you never waste a crisis because people will let you get away with things they would otherwise never let you get away with, it's also handy for obfuscating any ill effects that might come about from your meddling. You can always just blame them on the previously existing crisis.

Links to this post:

About Me

Location: Floating in His Cloud-Hidden Bobservatory, Inside the Centers for Spiritual Disease Control and Pretension, Tonga

Who?! spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!